NC already have the buff

[biertrappist]

I liked NC the best. I liked their reason for fighting, and the harder hitting weapons sounded like my play style.

Kevin Moyer Dev

http://www.planetside2.com/news/dev-...vin-moyer-2012

[SKYeXile]

while its probably that NC weapons will be over powered because of their hard hitting alpha and most of their shit was in PS1...DO WE REALLY NEED A THREAD ABOUT THIS NOW?

[biertrappist]

Having played PS1 for a few years first as NC then as VS, its important to listen what the devs are saying.

Now? Hmmm a dev posts the NC have harder hitting weapons and you just hope it isn't a big deal? I ask to enquire. If it's not a buff explain the relationship to the MCG & Lasher.

By raising the question, I hope rather to be told by devs what the trade off is. Do for example VS get accuracy and the TR rate of fire.

Perhaps devs might explain how they factor damage.

Point is, it is legitimate to ask what is meant by this. Frankly, the NC had the loudest voice in PS1 and generally got what they wanted. Let's recall the Lasher debacle.

So far from being alarmist I'm seeking an understanding from the devs why it shouldn't be considered a buff.

[PlaceboCyanide]

An unbalanced game is a soon to be unpopular game. SOE knows this, they will strive to balance the game the best they can. I think they're doing a good job so far sticking to the balance of PS1. Will NC have harder hitting weapons and more armor? yes, but that is only part of the story. Not everything can be put in a bar graph at this point in time of development. Maybe we'll see that NC come up short when it comes to their AOE weapons -- where the Vanu will shine... and will carry less ammo and be empty long before the Terrans.

tl;dr - Wait until beta before you judge too harshly

[biertrappist]

Originally Posted by PlaceboCyanide

An unbalanced game is a soon to be unpopular game. SOE knows this, they will strive to balance the game the best they can. I think they're doing a good job so far sticking to the balance of PS1. Will NC have harder hitting weapons and more armor? yes, but that is only part of the story. Not everything can be put in a bar graph at this point in time of development. Maybe we'll see that NC come up short when it comes to their AOE weapons -- where the Vanu will shine... and will carry less ammo and be empty long before the Terrans.

tl;dr - Wait until beta before you judge too harshly

It's a quotation from a dev, not my supposition.

PS1 lost a lot of players precisely because it became unbalanced. The NC voice complaining about the lasher absolutely was an example of braying hard enough for long enough to get what you want. The schisms that caused in PS1.

Hence my point inquiring from devs - i.e. hoping they will put the comment in context.

Whether one calls it a buff or OP the outcome is the same in such an instance Malorn.

I repeat that it was a dev's comment about "harder hitting weapons" - I have every right to query that comment, precisely as it implies a relatively greater advantage.

So let the dev give the context, explain factoring if he may. But don't deny the right to query it as a buff / OP weapon if that is a reasonable conclusion to draw from a dev's stated comment.

Thank you Erendil, that seems nicely reducted and explanative.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by biertrappist

Having played PS1 for a few years first as NC then as VS, its important to listen what the devs are saying.

Now? Hmmm a dev posts the NC have harder hitting weapons and you just hope it isn't a big deal? I ask to enquire. If it's not a buff explain the relationship to the MCG & Lasher.

By raising the question, I hope rather to be told by devs what the trade off is. Do for example VS get accuracy and the TR rate of fire.

Perhaps devs might explain how they factor damage.

Point is, it is legitimate to ask what is meant by this. Frankly, the NC had the loudest voice in PS1 and generally got what they wanted. Let's recall the Lasher debacle.

So far from being alarmist I'm seeking an understanding from the devs why it shouldn't be considered a buff.

having played PS1 you will know that all NC weapons hit harder than their NC and TR counterparts.

as for the relation between the lasher and the MCG, they're both HA and their packets go awol all the time?

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by biertrappist

Having played PS1 for a few years first as NC then as VS, its important to listen what the devs are saying.

Now? Hmmm a dev posts the NC have harder hitting weapons and you just hope it isn't a big deal? I ask to enquire. If it's not a buff explain the relationship to the MCG & Lasher.

By raising the question, I hope rather to be told by devs what the trade off is. Do for example VS get accuracy and the TR rate of fire.

Perhaps devs might explain how they factor damage.

Point is, it is legitimate to ask what is meant by this. Frankly, the NC had the loudest voice in PS1 and generally got what they wanted. Let's recall the Lasher debacle.

So far from being alarmist I'm seeking an understanding from the devs why it shouldn't be considered a buff.

They've already told us this. A couple of times.

Generally-speaking:

• NC weapons do more damage on a per shot basis but fire the slowest. Their vehicles move the slowest but have the most armour.
• TR weapons do the least amount of damage per shot, but have the highest RoF. Their vehicles move the fastest. Their armour seems to be about on par with VS (more than VS on their MBT, less than VS on their ES Fighter).
• VS weapons are in the middle in terms of damage per shot and RoF. Same thing with their vehicles top speed, although they are the most maneuverable and most accurate.

If it helps, in an earlier thread I did a breakdown of general weapon characteristics for each empire based on a graph published in a recent PC Gamer UK article. I took the High/Medium/Low stats on their graph and replaced the color codes they gave us with grades A/B/C. I also added damage degradation as well based on what we know.

VS
Accuracy = A
Recoil (Burst Fire) = A
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = A
Rate of Fire = B
Damage Per Shot = B
Damage over Range (Degradation) = C


TR
Accuracy = B
Recoil (Burst Fire) = A
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = C
Rate of Fire = A
Damage Per Shot = C
Damage over Range (Degradation) = B


NC
Accuracy = B
Recoil (Burst Fire) = C
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = A
Rate of Fire = C
Damage Per Shot = A
Damage over Range (Degradation) = B
__________________

[Saieno]

Originally Posted by Erendil

They've already told us this....(blah blah)

I'm not actually quoting anything specific but I noticed your signature and finally thought I would say something lol.

Because it's a Magrider and how they move, you would have full 360 degree rotation already because of the hovering mechanic. Moving the main turret up would just make it look awkward in my opinion. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to look one way and travel in another without a problem like the other tanks do, it'll just look a bit different from the outside perspective.

To kinda keep this on topic, I like your colored chart you made

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Saieno

I'm not actually quoting anything specific but I noticed your signature and finally thought I would say something lol.

Because it's a Magrider and how they move, you would have full 360 degree rotation already because of the hovering mechanic. Moving the main turret up would just make it look awkward in my opinion. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to look one way and travel in another without a problem like the other tanks do, it'll just look a bit different from the outside perspective.

To kinda keep this on topic, I like your colored chart you made

RE: the Mag, yep, you're right that the hover allows it to rotate the whole tank like a turret would. But it needs to be able to do so fast enough to be comparable to Vannie/Prowler turret. And it also needs to be able to strafe and move in reverse at about the same speed it can move forward otherwise it'll be at a disadvantage when flanking, strafing past opponents, and retreating.

Since the Mag is the VS's primary ground assault vehicle, if the Devs don't design it to compensate well enough for the fixed cannon it could severely gimp the entire empire. But I have confidence that they can build the Mag to be a fairly competitive MBT using a fixed-forward cannon. My sig is there as much to keep the issue in everyone's mind as it is to show my own personal preference for its design. I get quite a number of comments about it, which tells me my ploy is working.

Oh, and thanks on the chart compliment.

Originally Posted by Malorn

You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad. It was confusing to me looking at the TR/NC because they appeared to be incorrect - they weren't its just the A/B/C thing wasn't a good mapping.

Actually I chose A/B/C specifically because it gives you a quality/desirability rating and tells you how good it is. So "A" in recoil means it has the most desirable amount of recoil - i.e. the least amount of recoil and most controllable by the firer.

Using "High" was what the PCGUK article did and it caused more confusion among people on these boards. The article's graph had high/medium/low corresponding to the colors red/orange/yellow. So for example it showed the NC having "high/red" damage per shot, but it also showed the VS had "high/red" recoil.

That was confusing for many because we know from other sources that NC have the highest damage per shot which corresponds with the high/red setting, but the VS have the least amount of recoil, but yet the graph said it was "high." But what is "high" recoil? Does it mean it has a high amount of recoil? Or that it's "high" quality of recoil - i.e. not very much?

That made people wonder for every setting if "high" meant "a high amount of" or if it meant "high quality."

The values of High/Med/Low can be easily interpreted to mean either a quantitative measurement of amplitude or a qualitative one of desirability, and the PCGUK graph used those meanings interchangeably. OTOH Grades A/B/C for most people generally mean only qualitative desirability, so there's less room for misinterpretation.


EDIT: incidentally, which TR/NC values on my graph appeared to be incorrect for you? Was it recoil or something else?

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Erendil

If it helps, in an earlier thread I did a breakdown of general weapon characteristics for each empire based on a graph published in a recent PC Gamer UK article. I took the High/Medium/Low stats on their graph and replaced the color codes they gave us with grades A/B/C. I also added damage degradation as well based on what we know.

You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad. It was confusing to me looking at the TR/NC because they appeared to be incorrect - they weren't its just the A/B/C thing wasn't a good mapping.

Here's the conversion
VS
Accuracy = High
Recoil (Burst Fire) = High
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High
Rate of Fire = Med
Damage Per Shot = Med
Damage over Range (Degradation) = Low


TR
Accuracy = Med
Recoil (Burst Fire) = High
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = Low
Rate of Fire = High
Damage Per Shot = Low
Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med


NC
Accuracy = Med
Recoil (Burst Fire) = Low
Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High
Rate of Fire = Low
Damage Per Shot = High
Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med

[Infektion]

Ahem... Why isn't this topic closed?

[Grognard]

Ok, so correct me if I have this wrong, but I am attempting to "rate" the ratings, empire-wide, to get an over all "score"... Ill use your quote, and mark my understanding in bracket/bold off to the left. Then at the end sum up for a score.

Good = 3
Decent = 2
Bad = 1

Originally Posted by Malorn

You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad.

Here's the conversion:
VS
[3] Accuracy = High
[1] Recoil (Burst Fire) = High (High recoil is bad)
[1] Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High (same as above)
[2] Rate of Fire = Med
[2] Damage Per Shot = Med
[1] Damage over Range (Degradation) = Low (low damage is bad)
VS get 10 points


TR
[2] Accuracy = Med
[1] Recoil (Burst Fire) = High (High recoil is bad)
[3] Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = Low (...but this is good)
[3] Rate of Fire = High
[1] Damage Per Shot = Low (bad...)
[2] Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med
TR gets 12 points



NC
[2] Accuracy = Med
[3] Recoil (Burst Fire) = Low (Low recoil is a good thing)
[1] Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High (...not so good)
[1] Rate of Fire = Low
[3] Damage Per Shot = High
[2] Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med
NC get 12 points

So, VS10, TR12, NC12, unless I missed something.

Edit: First order of business for me, is to sidegrade into getting recoil under control, since VS weapons may be frustrating... Especially since accuracy should be most helpful at range, but where damage is the least. I wonder how long it takes for the recoil to trump the accuracy... will be interesting. I think I will need to gravitate to an "NC-style Pusar"...

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Grognard

Ok, so correct me if I have this wrong, but I am attempting to "rate" the ratings, empire-wide, to get an over all "score"... Ill use your quote, and mark my understanding in bracket/bold off to the left. Then at the end sum up for a score.

Good = 3
Decent = 2
Bad = 1




So, VS10, TR12, NC12, unless I missed something.

Edit: First order of business for me, is to sidegrade into getting recoil under control, since VS weapons may be frustrating... Especially since accuracy should be most helpful at range, but where damage is the least. I wonder how long it takes for the recoil to trump the accuracy... will be interesting. I think I will need to gravitate to an "NC-style Pusar"...

If you try my graph and use the following values:

A = 3 points
B = 2 points
C = 1 point

You get the following:

VS = 14
TR = 12
NC = 12

I guess it all depends on how to interpret the recoil ratings.

I'm more inclined to believe my graph since it makes no sense to give energy weapons the worst recoil. They should have next to none since their projectiles have little to no mass and rely instead on things like heat-transfer from high-energy particle/plasma, etc to damage their targets. Plus the PS2 official site explicitly stated the Beamer anyway has little to no recoil.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You should really use High/Med/Low because the A/B/C grade implies how good something is. "A" in recoil is not good; it's bad. It was confusing to me looking at the TR/NC because they appeared to be incorrect - they weren't its just the A/B/C thing wasn't a good mapping.

I understood his just fine, yours makes less sense to me.

The MCG unloaded 13 rounds before it's CoF started blooming (unless the soldier got hit), that to me is an example of an A burst fire rating. Yours says TR have a "high" for burst fire recoil, implying that it's bad when it's exactly the opposite. On average the TR weaponry had better burst fire values then the other two empires. The Cycler shot 6 rounds before affecting the CoF while the Pulsar shot 4 and the Gauss an impressive 3. The Lasher and JH bloomed on the first shot, but the JH fired so slowly that it's CoF was almost closed before the next shot and the Lasher recovered it's aim better then the MCG but still over time the CoF bloomed more then the JH.

[Malorn]

That's not a buff; it's the empire characteristic.

NC have high damage-per-shot & high armor
VS have accuracy and mobility
TR have speed & damage throughput